Kikee Malik

The Ministry of Labour appealed the acquittal of Dufferin Construction Company and supervisor David Pimpinella on charges arising from a workplace accident where a large slab of ice fell from a tunnel face wall, injuring an employee.

The trial judge dismissed all three counts, finding the Crown had failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals on Counts 1 and 3 (employer and supervisor duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act), finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and the verdicts were supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal on Count 2, a technical charge regarding missing safety markings on crane and basket equipment, and entered a conviction on that count.

Four defendants—two corporations and two individuals—were charged with twelve counts of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a fatal accident on May 12, 2008, at a condominium construction site in Toronto.

A piece of cast iron pipe fell from the 23rd floor and struck a senior supervisor, Emilio Piccinin, causing his death.

A former co-defendant, Maple Leaf Structural Ltd., pleaded guilty to one charge.

The remaining defendants pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The court found that while Maple Leaf bore primary responsibility for the accident, the remaining defendants exercised due diligence and did not breach their statutory duties under the Construction Projects Regulation.

All charges against the remaining defendants were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision assessing damages against her former employer for breaches of the Employment Standards Act, 2000, including reprisal and unpaid overtime.

The applicant argued the Board's damages award was insufficient and sought additional compensation for lost bonus pay, pension contributions, and extended wage loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's exercise of discretion under s. 104 of the Act was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

A guest at the appellant's resort drowned in an unattended indoor swimming pool.

A Ministry of Labour inspector ordered the resort to report the death under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which requires reporting when a person is killed or critically injured from any cause at a workplace.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Divisional Court upheld the order, finding the pool was a workplace because employees sometimes worked there.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that this interpretation was unreasonable as it would lead to absurd results.

The Court held that s. 51(1) requires a reasonable nexus between the hazard giving rise to the death or injury and a realistic risk to worker safety at the site.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking to allow collateral attack on Employment Standards Act orders, alternatively seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, and alternatively seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Employment Standards Act were unconstitutional.

The accused had been charged with failing to comply with orders to pay outstanding wages to employees.

The accused argued he was impecunious and unable to meet the statutory requirement to pay or post a letter of credit to appeal the orders.

The court rejected all three applications, finding that the rule against collateral attack applied, that no abuse of process had occurred, and that the relevant statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.

The applicant resort sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding an inspector's order.

The order required the resort to report the drowning of a guest in an unsupervised swimming pool under s. 51(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that 'person' includes non-workers and that the swimming pool was a 'workplace' because workers perform duties there, even if none were present during the incident.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant casino appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex in a hiring decision for a washroom attendant position.

The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding of prima facie discrimination and its conclusion that the casino failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement, as it did not prove it canvassed alternatives to its discriminatory practice.

However, the court found the tribunal breached natural justice by failing to allow the casino to present evidence and submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the matter was remitted to a different tribunal member for a rehearing solely on the issue of remedy.

The appellant casino appealed a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finding it discriminated against the respondent on the basis of sex in a hiring decision for a washroom attendant position.

The Divisional Court upheld the tribunal's finding of prima facie discrimination, agreeing that the Meiorin analysis applied rather than the Law analysis.

The court also upheld the finding that the casino failed to establish a bona fide occupational requirement.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding the tribunal breached the duty of fairness by failing to allow the casino to present evidence and submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the tribunal for a rehearing on remedy only.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer her disability discrimination and harassment complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal.

The applicant argued the Commission's investigation was incompetent for failing to interview her physicians and relying on potentially biased employee statements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the investigation was thorough and not clearly deficient.

The Court held that the Commission's conclusion—that the applicant was accommodated and terminated for progressive discipline rather than discrimination—was supported by ample evidence and was not patently unreasonable.